Summary of Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Control Law

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

There's another issue with her proposed legislation of making semi-automatics NFA weapons. No one should have to pay a tax to practice his/her 2nd Amendment rights. It's no different than a Poll Tax which had to be prevented by the 24th Amendment.

True. But there's already a tax on NFA devices, and so far that as stood up to court cases. T

 

[cowhrse1]

I hate to say this, but the NRA-ILA analysis is misleading in places

I will also agree to a limited extent.

The NRA will, and are not above embellishing the details, it's politics after all and they are the heavy hitter in town. HOWEVER, Feinstein won't lay all her cards on the table until/if it goes to the floor. They know how to play too. I think the truth lies somewhere in the grey area between what Feinstein's site says and what the ILA says. Either way there could be a significant change in the guns we can own. Pay attention everyone! Whatever may make it through, we will have ZERO chance of repealing in the future! Consider whatever we offer up gone forever...

 

[Onmilo]

Here's my offer.
My guns didn't kill anyone and neither did yours.
I am not willing to give up ANYTHING for the sake of murders who will continue to do what they "Like to do." regardless of restrictions placed on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who's rights are protected by government decree.

 

[GA400]

Hacker15E - point taken on labels and pigeonholing.

Original post edited to remove those comments.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

....

 

[rbernie]

And yet I agree. Looking through the lens of history, those that would disarm us are historically colored both Red and Blue, and our Big R friends have backed and enacted as much antiRKBA legislation as our Big D friends.

Using inaccurate labels for our foes can only lead to a misapplication of resistance.

 

[SuperNaut]

I fail to see how dividing 2A support along modern partisan lines is beneficial to our cause in any way.

 

[Hacker15E]

And yet I agree. Looking through the lens of history, those that would disarm us are historically colored both Red and Blue, and our Big R friends have backed and enacted as much antiRKBA legislation as our Big D friends.

Using inaccurate labels for our foes can only lead to a misapplication of resistance.

I think it is easy to just split the world up into 'us' and 'them' along convenient and (unfortunately) intellectually lazy lines.

The 'us' in this case are people who believe that the RKBA is a natural right that is secured by the 2A, and the 'them' are people who would infringe on that right for many different reasons.

Because there are many different reasons, those foes and threats come from many different places, including BOTH sides of the political spectrum AND even from within the "pro gun" community. I've read plenty of letters to the editor from "gun people" who are perfectly willing to sell out "assault weapons", so long as it doesn't infringe on whatever firearms they like.

Here's a perfect example:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20121228_Stu_Bykofsky_.html

Stu starts off with a nice argument about how "why" isn't a valid argument against firearms ownership by responsible citizens, and then later in the article apparently feels that the rules are different for responsible citizens who own "military-style rifles" (apparently not understanding that just about every rifle today has origins as a military firearm).

Sen Feinstein's proposal has overshot just the "military style rifles" and is looking for anything semiautomatic, including pistols. She basically proposes limiting gun owners to choose from anything designed before 1900. Is she has her way, we're all going to be able to "bear arms" like the Colt SAA and the Winchester 1894 lever action, and that will be called "sensible restrictions".

The Cowboy Action Shooters and the hunters will shrug their shoulders at this law, and not care about the loss of ability to buy or own a Glock or AR....right up until some idiot shoots up a movie theater with a pair of six-shooters, and then the gun control advocates will be asking for another round of "sensible restrictions" on the "high power handguns" that are only "designed to kill people". They'll be playing the clip from Dirty Harry in an endless loop, showing how we need to get "the most powerful handgun in the world, the .44 magnum" off the streets! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maBJzJgYjto

What we need here is to STICK TOGETHER as supporters of rights and liberties for firearms owners. We are ALL under attack. It may not be your choice of firearm today, but given the slippery slope, it may be your choice on the chopping block next. And it won't matter who you voted for, what party you are registered with, or what your religious or political leanings are: we will ALL have lost an important right.

 

[pillage]

The only us and them categories that need to be made, are those for keeping gun rights and those who are for taking them. It is that simple really.

 

[AlexanderA]

What we need here is to STICK TOGETHER as supporters of rights and liberties for firearms owners.

Ain't that the truth! I think that by this point, just about all bona fide gun advocates have realized this. When I read letters to the editor or online comments from so-called "responsible hunters or gun owners" (AKA Fudds)advocating the outlawing of "assault weapons," I immediately suspect that these are shills for the antis. Nobody could be that obtuse in this day and age.

 

[r1derbike]

Now you know what Obama/D.F. and other anti-constitutionals have been working on "under the radar".

I'm amazed at how many didn't see this coming, or didn't see how over-the-top this was to become.

Time to pen our reps., lest this insanity prevails.

 

[Hacker15E]

When I read letters to the editor or online comments from so-called "responsible hunters or gun owners" (AKA Fudds)advocating the outlawing of "assault weapons," I immediately suspect that these are shills for the antis. Nobody could be that obtuse in this day and age.

I think there are still plenty of firearms owners who don't see the bigger picture and would be perfectly happy to throw "assault weapons" to the wolves in order to placate the masses. In fact, they themselves probably stick their nose up at such firearms and the people that use them -- I know plenty of guys like this at my very own shooting range in rural Oklahoma.

FWIW, it doesn't do any good to label these guys as 'Fudds' as if they're not part of us -- that doesn't help us all stick together.

 

[r1derbike]

Communications sent to my representatives in D.C. as of now.

This insanity must be made known.

 

[r1derbike]

I think there are still plenty of firearms owners who don't see the bigger picture and would be perfectly happy to throw "assault weapons" to the wolves in order to placate the masses.

True, but they don't realize the wolves will be coming after their firearms, eventually.

 

[hso]

I suggest sending this to every elected politician at the local, state and federal level.

"Any AWB is a failed idea because it doesn't address the root cause of the shooting at Sandy Hook, is unconstitutional in the light of the SCOTUS rulings on DC and Chicago clarifying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, is unworkable because of the budgetary crisis and that millions of people will be accidentally turned into felons when they fail to register their existing firearms thinking they aren't covered, will create greater government bureaucracy, and treats 200 million voters as if they were criminally insane instead of treating the criminally insane. If you oppose an AWB I pledge to work for your reelection to keep a rational elected official in office. Any support for an AWB will result in my passionately working for any opponent running to unseat you and to unseat those who also supported an AWB. The backlash against politicians who supported the 1994 AWB will pale in comparison to the backlash against those that don't oppose such misguided politically motivated legislation using the tragedy at Sandy Hook as an excuse now."

 

[MuleRyder]

Any politician that votes against this will be labeled during future campaigns as,"...voted to allow criminals access to military style assault weapons."

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't see how this is under the radar. Feinstein has pushed a new AWB many times. I honestly think that Obama wanted to do a lot of under-the-table actions with BATFE rules and DOJ guidelines, and he actually resents being forced to drag this process out into the light. This will cost him political capital, which he wanted to use for other things.

 

[RX-178]

Any politician that votes against this will be labeled during future campaigns as,"...voted to allow criminals access to military style assault weapons."

Their liberal opponents ALREADY use this line.

 

[mljdeckard]

Correct. We have been very successful in proving to them that the consequences of supporting these laws far outweigh the consequences of not supporting them. This needs to continue.

 

[gdcpony]

Time to call my representatives.....again. If this or something like this passes, then I only have one thing to say.

It is better to die upon your feet then to live upon your knees.

Me too. I hope it works tough.

 

[lionking]

Seeing as how the AR and M1A is most popular at target matches, shooting sports would be a different world after.

Question, many cops buy and own AR's or whatnot for personal use , would they fall under this regulation also or not? I hope they aren't exempt.

Another question, there is the term "no sunset" but nothing can be set in stone, anything should be capable of being overturned right?

 

[mcdonl]

Susan Collins response.....

Dear Leroy,

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to gun control legislation in the wake of the horrifying tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

These shootings were acts of violence that our country has experienced far too often. I was shaken as I learned of the details of the shooting, which cut short the lives of so many little children and seven adults, causing such immense suffering and unspeakable grief for their families and their community.

I grew up in northern Maine where responsible gun ownership is part of the heritage of many families. While our country should examine what can be done to help prevent gun violence, denying the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens won't change the behavior of those who intend on using firearms for criminal purposes.

We need to have a national conversation to try to avert another devastating shooting. To be fruitful, however, that discussion must do more than focus solely on regulating firearms; it also needs to examine issues such as the glorification of violence in the media and video games and the mental health system in this country.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.


Sincerely,


Susan M. Collins
United States Senator

Much what I expected her to say.

 

[slidemuzik]

I just wanted to address a disturbing trend that I have seen in this thread and others recently. It has to do with the notion that as long as they don't want to take what I have, I don't care that they want to take what my neighbor has.

Needing to know what on the proposed list to be banned, or asking if a particular weapon is likely to be banned, is an indication that some people would be OK with a new ban, as long as it doesn't immediately affect them. This is a dangerous attitude.

People, please understand that even if they only want your neighbor's guns today, they'll soon want yours. Don't think for a minute that "It's OK, I'll still have mine when this is over", because you most assuredly won't. You will wake up one day, and your's will be gone, too.

And, the only way that won't happen, is if we all band together to protect everybody's rights; even the rights of those whom you might think may not actually have a need for a semi-automatic rifle that can carry more than 4 rounds.

^^^ THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND^^^​

I felt the same way reading the posts in this thread. History has shown this to be true over and over.

 

[RX-178]

'We'll talk about everything and do nothing' is frankly, at this point far preferable a response than 'We'll ban guns'.

 

[blkbrd666]

Even if you think this won't pass, even if you only own a single shot .22 rifle, at the very least, go to the NRA/ILA site and notify your representatives! If nothing else, cut and paste the moderator's suggested text and send it on.

If you do the math on what this government spends/owes/takes from you in taxes, it's a sinking ship in a matter of time. Please hang on to your rights and your guns because you'll probably need them to stay alive and free. Of course, you're not free now, but it could be worse.

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx